GR 129807; (December, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129807 December 9, 2005
DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. CRISTINA OPEÑA and TEOFILO RAMOS, JR., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. (DLPC) is a franchise holder supplying electricity to respondents, its customers. In 1988, DLPC inspected the electric meters at respondent Ramos, Jr.’s office and residence, allegedly finding broken and unauthorized seals and evidence of tampering. Tests indicated the meters were under-registering consumption. Consequently, DLPC removed the meters and later demanded payment from respondent Opeña for alleged unbilled consumption from 1983 to 1988, computed based on the highest recorded monthly consumption within that period. The demands totaled over ₱130,000 and threatened disconnection.
Respondents filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), asserting they had paid all bills for the period and that DLPC’s computations were baseless. They sought to nullify the computation documents and to enjoin DLPC from disconnecting their power. The RTC declared DLPC’s computation documents null and void, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA deleted the award of damages but upheld the nullification, prompting DLPC’s petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the computation of unbilled consumption by DLPC, based on the highest recorded monthly consumption within a five-year period, is valid and enforceable against the respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court ruled that DLPC’s methodology for computing differential billing was invalid. While Republic Act No. 7832 authorizes a utility to compute unbilled consumption based on the “highest recorded monthly consumption,” this law took effect only in 1994. The subject meter inspection and demands occurred in 1988 and 1989. Laws have no retroactive effect unless expressly declared. Applying the new law to compute liabilities for a period ending before its enactment would give it a retroactive application, prejudicing the respondents by imposing a new basis for liability that did not exist during their contract. At the time of the disputed transactions, no statutory authority prescribed such a specific computation method. Therefore, DLPC’s unilateral computation, absent a clear contractual stipulation or governing law at the time, was without legal basis. The documents embodying this computation were correctly declared null and void by the lower courts.